Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01986

#1

Oct 13, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus (verified) (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $5, receipt number APAWDC-9940676), filed by Edgardo Enrique Garcia Alvarado. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Certification under 28 USC 2242) (Green, Brian) (Entered: 10/13/2026)

Oct 15, 2026

Judge Mark R. Hornak presiding. (bmh)

#2

Oct 19, 2026

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE, DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENTS, PROVIDING NOTICE OF SERVICE, DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND FILINGS, AND ADDRESSING OTHER REQUESTS FOR RELIEF. Respondents are further ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE by a filing on the docket of this Court within 7 days of the date of this Order demonstrating good cause as to why the Court should not grant the Petition. In such filing the Respondents shall also confirm: (1) the statutory basis for Petitioner's initial and continued detention, and if Petitioner was arrested without a warrant, the circumstances justifying the warrantless arrest; (2) if Petitioner is currently detained under § 1226(a), that Respondents have relied upon the requisite warrant required by law for Petitioner's continued detention; and (3) if Petitioner is detained under § 1226(a) and has requested an Immigration Judge to conduct a bond hearing in order to review Petitioner's custody determination, (a) the date which such bond hearing has been or will be held and (b) the date which the scheduling of such bond hearing occurred; (4) whether an official transcript or audio recording of the bond hearing exists, and, if so, whether it includes the entirety of the bond hearing and provide the Court and Petitioners counsel with such transcript or recording, and if a transcript or recording does not exist, what Respondents' position on the appropriate remedy is; (5) whether the bond hearing described in the Petition satisfies the requirements of due process as understood by the law of the Third Circuit; (6) whether Petitioner was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before his present detention and the appropriate remedy for the lack of such hearing. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 10/19/26. (bdb) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

#3

Oct 19, 2026

Remark: ECF Nos. 1 and 2 emailed to usapaw.civ.imm.2241.moshannon@usdoj.gov on this date. Text-only entry. No PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdb) (Entered: 10/19/2026)

#4

Oct 20, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by Kerianne Nagy on behalf of TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DAVID VENTURELLA, WARDEN MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING CENTER. (Nagy, Kerianne) (Entered: 10/20/2026)

#5

Oct 26, 2026

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 2 Order to Show Cause,,,,,,, filed by TODD BLANCHE, MARKWAYNE MULLIN, DAVID VENTURELLA, WARDEN MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8) (Nagy, Kerianne) (Entered: 10/26/2026)

#6

Oct 27, 2026

ORDER. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is to respond to the Respondent's filing at ECF No. 5 within 7 days or is otherwise directed to file notice that they do not intend to file a Reply. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 10/27/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdb) (Entered: 10/27/2026)

Oct 27, 2026

Order

#7

Nov 03, 2026

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 5 Response to Order to Show Cause, filed by Edgardo Enrique Garcia Alvarado. (Green, Brian) (Entered: 11/03/2026)

#8

Nov 05, 2026

ORDER DENYING 1 Petition for Habeas Corpus by Edgardo Enrique Garcia Alvarado. The Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without authorization in 2013 and was subsequently removed to Honduras days later. (ECF No. 1, at 1). The Petitioner then re-entered the United States without inspection in 2014. Id. The Petitioner was detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency ("ICE") on October 1, 2026 and is currently held at Moshannon Valley Processing Center. (ECF No. 1, at 1, 4). Upon detainment, the Petitioner expressed fear and was given a reasonable fear interview which resulted in a negative fear finding. The Petitioner appealed such determination to an immigration judge (ECF No. 5, at 2). The Petitioner has not made any claims to this Court regarding his reasonable fear proceedings. The Petitioner initially asserted that his warrantless arrest was unconstitutional and that he was being improperly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225; however, at this juncture the Petitioner does not appear to dispute that he is being detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). (ECF Nos. 1, at 9-18 (Petition); 5, at 5 (Respondent); 7 (Reply). 8 U.S.C. § 1231 governs the removal of noncitizens who are subject to a reinstated removal order. Once ordered removed, the government must remove the noncitizen within a 90-day "removal period." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) (1)(A). Detention of the noncitizen is mandatory and not subject to a bond hearing during the removal period. § 1231(a)(1)-(2); Johnson v. Arteaga- Martinez, 596 U.S. 573, 474 (2022). That removal period begins "on the latest of": (1) the date the order of removal becomes 'administratively final,' (2) the date of the final order of any court that entered a stay of removal, or (3) the date on which the alien is released from non-immigration detention or confinement." Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 528 (2021); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a). Under some circumstances, the detention of the noncitizen may continue after the 90-day removal period in what is called the "post- removal-period." Id. at 528-529 (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(1)(C), (a)(6), (c) (2)(A)). In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Supreme Court held that detention of a noncitizen following a final order of removal is "presumptively reasonable" for a period of six months. 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). But even after that six-month period, detention may continue "until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Id.; see also 8 CFR § 241.13 (Zadvydas procedures). Here, the Petitioner was detained on October 1, 2026 and was issued a Reinstatement of Deportation Order that same day. (ECF No. 5-2 (2013 Notice and Order of Expedited Removal); 5-4 (Notice to Reinstate Prior Order); 5-5 (Warrant of Removal)). His removal proceedings appear to have been stayed pursuant to his expression of reasonable fear, and to the best of this Court's knowledge, such proceedings are ongoing. (ECF No. 5); see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(III) (providing IJ review of credible fear determination); id. § 1225(b)(1)(C) (no administrative appeal except for IJ review); id. § 1252(a)(2)(A)(iii) (no judicial review of credible fear determination). Thus, Petitioner is now subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), with his 90-day removal period beginning upon the finality of his reasonable fear process. Even if his removal period has already begun, he has been detained for a month, which is well within the 90-day mandatory detention period prescribed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a), as well as the 6- month "presumptively reasonable" period set out in Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. As to Petitioner's claim that his warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, ICE may conduct warrantless arrests pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) (2), which provides ICE with limited authority to arrest a noncitizen without a warrant when the officer "has reason to believe that the noncitizen is in the United States in violation of [U.S. immigration] law" and "is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest." 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2); Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. 387, 408 (2012). Both parties agree that the initial traffic stop was permissible. (See ECF No. 1, at 18 (Petitioner); 5, at 11 (Respondent)). Respondents assert, and the Petitioner does not attempt to refute, that the detaining officers became aware that Petitioner was unlawfully present in the United States during said stop and that they feared that the Petitioner would flee because the Petitioner was in a moving car. (ECF No. 5, at 11; see United States v. Cantu, 519 F.2d 494, 497 (7th Cir. 1975) (warrantless arrest was proper for alien in a moving car, who was highly mobile and possessed the capacity to change momentarily their location and direction.). The Record in this Case therefore does not demonstrate that the Petitioner's arrest was improper. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition at ECF No. 1 is DENIED. The Clerk will close the case on the docket without prejudice, and the Court retains jurisdiction over the action and the parties pending further proceedings, as may be appropriate, including interpretation or enforcement of its Orders. Signed by Judge Mark R. Hornak on 11/5/26. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (bdb) (Entered: 11/05/2026)

Nov 05, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case